Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on January 11, 2005, 12:04:19 pm
-
Anti-seat belt law advocate is killed in automobile accident (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp)
Personally, I insist to the point of obnoxious that every person* in any vehicle I travel in wear a seatbelt. Don't like it? Tough luck - put the thing on.
* Heart surgery patients not included.
This message has been brought to you by a concerned citizen. Buckle up, dummy!
-
Stupid man. Serves him right...
-
It;s a force of habit for me to automatically put on my seatbelt. And I generally nag what few passengers I have to put them on, too, or I don't start off... Sealtbelts are good. Wether you think them dorky or not...
-
Natural selection in action?
-
Talk about irony.
-
Yay Darwin!
__________________
Diamond Geezer likes snow
-
Well to be fair Sandwich, you do drive a tank, so your standards might not be univerally applicable.
;) ;)
-
This is just too funny :D
Although what's the betting that there is some conspiracy nut out there who blames the goverment for this. After all the fact that the two people wearing seatbelts survived while the guy who didn't was not only killed but ejected from the car too might sound suspicious to someone who has a lack of understanding of basic physics.
-
That is rather pathetic. Unfortunately, I always forget to put on my seatbelt, so I'm in trouble there :D
-
I don't put on my seatbelt most of the time. Dunno why. It's not uncomfortable, and I'm not worried bout my health. I just dont. Probably need to work out that habit.
-
driver gets fined as well as the passenger if they're caught without one on over here so you'd be well entitled to insist on them wearing it.
-
Yup.
No-one I know will set off until at least the passenger-side person has their belt on.
People in the back........Meh.
-
The department of transport would have us believe the un-seatbelted guy in the back is what kills the guy in the front...
__________________
Diamond Geezer drives a hummer... 'cos they won't seel him a tank
-
I always wear it (force of habit) but if educated people don't want to I don't think they should have to. Children is a different matter ofcourse.
-
I don't like the government comeing in to tell you what to do, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt fine, darwin will take care of you soon enough.
that said I am obsesive about wearing a seat belt. I won't even turn the key untill I've herd as many clicks as I have people in the car, and if someone takes there belt off they had better have a damned good reason, like a protal to hell has opened up in there abdomen and somehow takeing the belt off will help, or I'll go fock'n balistic, you'll have about four seconds to but it back on before I pull over and slam on the brakes.
-
When i drive, I wear it... When i drive others, I wear it, and insist they wear it... When I'm being driven though, and not asked to wear it (and if i am, i will), i usually won't, unless its a driver i don't exactly trust, but if its someone like, my parents, i won't...
-
Kinda reminds me of that Family Guy episode when Y2K strikes, Stewie mutates, and all his spawn attack the townsmen who just threw all the guns onto the bonfire.
-
I think if you're not wearing a seatbelt and go flying through your window, then you're quite dangerous to other people. So the government has a case in stopping that happening.
And, of course, if a rear-passenger smacks straight into the back of your skull.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well to be fair Sandwich, you do drive a tank, so your standards might not be univerally applicable.
;) ;)
No I don't. I don't have a lisence to. :p
-
Well, I can't sit in a car without wearing a seatbelt to be honest.
I've lost 3 schoolfriends who thought they were too 'cool' for seatbelts, and never realised that it doesn't matter how good a driver you are, because you have to cope with several thousand other drivers who may well be crap.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I don't like the government comeing in to tell you what to do, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt fine, darwin will take care of you soon enough.
that said I am obsesive about wearing a seat belt. I won't even turn the key untill I've herd as many clicks as I have people in the car, and if someone takes there belt off they had better have a damned good reason, like a protal to hell has opened up in there abdomen and somehow takeing the belt off will help, or I'll go fock'n balistic, you'll have about four seconds to but it back on before I pull over and slam on the brakes.
I like you. :D
Seriously, a younger relative of mine got in the back seat one day and didn't bother buckling up. I gave her plenty of time to reach for the seatbelt and buckle up, but she just sat there waiting for me to get under way. I decided to give her a little lesson in physics. I pulled out of the driveway, and goosed it a little and then very quickly slammed on the brakes. All she got was a face full of seat, but she definitely learned her lesson. Especially after I showed her pictures of people that were, lets just say less than fortunate after flying through the windshield.
Hell, I even saw someone that didn't bother wearing a seatbelt knock a softball sized hole in the windshield of someone else's car (idiot was a passenger) after the driver rear-ended someone at a stoplight. Needless to say, the moron had a major gash in his forehead and his face was covered in blood.
-
Seatbelts are law in Australia - every passenger in the car. If you get caught without 'em on, the offending passenger gets fined $200 - and the driver too.
-
I am deeply and fundamentally opposed to a law requiring seatbelts. Its my life, I can do what I want, same goes for any other passengers (except very small children). Unfortunately, the government of Canada disagrees.
Now personall, I do put on my seatbelt most of the time, its just force of habit, but I don't see how the government has any right to force such an issue. If I want to take the risk, thats my thing.
-
To a degree I see your point Rictor, but, the thing is that people not wearing seatbelts are not only a risk to themselves, if they were, then I'd agree, but someone in the back being thrown forward by the strength of a crash or emergency stop can ram the driver, whether they are wearing a seatbelt or not, into the dashboard, thus increasing the injury or possibly killing them.
When they are a risk to other people, I suppose that's what governments exist for as it where?
-
As flipside says you're not just a danger to yourself. You're not even just a danger to the other people in your car. When your broken and bruised body flies through the windscreen of the car you could very easily injure someone else.
-
Wearing a seatbelt is a law here. Get caught without one and you get fined. The passenger is also required to wear a seatbelt but that is his responsibility. The driver cannot be fined, etc because the passenger wasn't wearing one, only the passenger itself can receive a fine.
Sure, people are responsible for their own lives, but study by a third party has proven that people that DON'T wear seatbelt are less responsible in traffic then the people who DO wear them. It was also shown that a greater percentage of the less responsible people drove more safely after they started wearing the belt.
On top of that, wearing a seatbelt allows the driver to possess a longer reaction time in the case of a crash because their heads aren't immediatly smashed into the steering wheel. These fractions of a second can save lives.
So, in essence it isn't only their own lives but also that of innocent bystanders. I am totally for it.
-
Thats dubious at best.
Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.
________________________________
As for the passengers, whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt and whether or not they endanger anyone else in the car by doing so/not doing so is a matter between the passenger and the driver. The government has no business interfering in arrangements made between grown adults.
Of course, the government always knows whats best for everyone, far more than mere people do, right?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold.
Sounds like a load of Bollocks. Find me that study.
If you're going to take things to that degree the government shouldn't interfere with people building live nuclear weapons as long as it doesn't look like they are going to use them. After all what business does the government have interfering in the right of an adult to own live nuclear weapons?
-
I almost always wear a seatbelt, the only exclusion is when I can't find the bugger, or when you're trying to transport 5 people, plus luggage for three, in something ha bit smaller than a Fiat Panda. There was no way in hell I could even move, nevermind fly forward in case of a crash. Trying to put the thing on would've cost me a sprained shoulder.
Seriously though, it should be law. For the safety of others too.
-
I wear a seatbelt every time I drive because I don't fancy the 100 odd quid fine for not wearing one, but if I had the choice I'd probably leave it off for things like reversing/parking.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats dubious at best.
Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.
[/b]
Yeah, ofcourse that's the same :rolleyes:
Driving without a seatbelt has been shown to be a hazard to other people then the driver him- or herself. If not because of the study then because of the plain fact that it limits your reaction time in the event of an accident when you DON'T wear one.
As for the passengers, whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt and whether or not they endanger anyone else in the car by doing so/not doing so is a matter between the passenger and the driver. The government has no business interfering in arrangements made between grown adults.
Of course, the government always knows whats best for everyone, far more than mere people do, right?
Dude, I live in Holland. We are practically all about about personal freedom and stuff like that. Nevertheless, it is no longer your own right when you endanger another person. And that's EXACTLY what you are doing if you don't wear a seatbelt.
If you want to harm yourself, I couldn't give a crap because that's YOUR descision and it doesn't hurt others.
And sorry, but sometimes the government DOES know better then you, me or that guy on the street. If you think otherwise you can go live on the moon or something because you are already stuck in your own little 'pretend world'.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong.
-
Remember when talking to Rictor that you're dealing with someone who thinks that the governments activities to prevent people from owning child pornography is an infringment of civil liberties. This thing with seatbelts is actually quite mild for him.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sounds like a load of Bollocks. Find me that study.
I was trying to make a point. Obviously, there is no study.
As for nuclear weapons, those are specifically designed to inflict harm. They serve no other possible purpose. And given the potential for harm, they can hardly be compared to not wearing a seatbelt. If a nuclear bomb had the potential to kill one person or a few at most, it would be a different matter. But it's not, so there you go.
Originally posted by Tiara
Dude, I live in Holland. We are practically all about about personal freedom and stuff like that. Nevertheless, it is no longer your own right when you endanger another person. And that's EXACTLY what you are doing if you don't wear a seatbelt.
If you want to harm yourself, I couldn't give a crap because that's YOUR descision and it doesn't hurt others.
[/B]
Here's a scenario. Me and my friend agree to play Russian Roullete. We are both grown adults, and we both know the risks involved. Should the government have the power to come in and say "don't point that gun around, you might hurt your friend"?
If a back-seat passenger choose not to wear a seatbelt, he is also endangering the saftey of others in the car, that what you're saying right? But if the other people in the car ackowledge that risk and accept it, what you essentially have is an agreement between grown adults.* And adults don't need to be nannied and supervised, they can handle their own ****.
He is waving a loaded gun around, to overstate the danger significantly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the other passengers have agreed to take that risk. Its their choice to make. If they don't agree with him, then he either buckles up or he's walking. Simple as that.
*obviously if there is a small child present, the situation changes and so does my stance on seatbelts.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats dubious at best.
Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.
I'm guessing you're against the prosecution of people who knowingly/deliberately infect others with AIDs, then?
-
oh for ****s sake, stop acting like not wearing a seatbelt will single-handedly bring about the destruction of the human race!
If that someone agrees to be infected with AIDS, its no business of mine.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
oh for ****s sake, stop acting like not wearing a seatbelt will single-handedly bring about the destruction of the human race!
If that someone agrees to be infected with AIDS, its no business of mine.
Agrees? What has this got to do with agreeing? Lets say I'm driving down the motorway, and the passenger behind me unbuckles their seatbelt.
Now, I can't and indeed shouldn't be able to see that, because I need to control the car, not the passenger. And then there is a crash, and rear-seat numpty crashes into the back of my head and kills me.
EDIt; or is catapulted out into the road, causing a further accident. which is another possibility.
-
The people in your car are presumably your friends and family. It stands to reason that you can reach some sort of agreement without outside supervision. If you're genuinly concerned about seatbelt safety, then either the passangers in your car put them on or get the hell out of the car. If however, you adopt an "ah screw it" attitude, then you are conciously accepting the risks, and any consequences that may result.
The people you are likely to be driving around are probably not strangers, nor are they assholes. If you insist upon them buckling up, then I'm sure they will oblige you. If that doesn't work, and you feel threatened by their non-seatbelt wearing, as I said, kick them out.
-
i always wore a seatbelt but now you sai that i should and because i am a rebel i won't be wearing it from now on :mad:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The people in your car are presumably your friends and family. It stands to reason that you can reach some sort of agreement without outside supervision. If you're genuinly concerned about seatbelt safety, then either the passangers in your car put them on or get the hell out of the car. If however, you adopt an "ah screw it" attitude, then you are conciously accepting the risks, and any consequences that may result.
The people you are likely to be driving around are probably not strangers, nor are they assholes. If you insist upon them buckling up, then I'm sure they will oblige you. If that doesn't work, and you feel threatened by their non-seatbelt wearing, as I said, kick them out.
So, basically, you're happy to put your life in their hands with no real control, rather than risk there being a law that does the same thing?
(I see we are apparently ignoring other road users here)
Ok, how about another question; in what way is legally requiring people to buckle up a bad thing?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Here's a scenario. Me and my friend agree to play Russian Roullete. We are both grown adults, and we both know the risks involved. Should the government have the power to come in and say "don't point that gun around, you might hurt your friend"?
Guns are illigal here so that scenario pretty much is a f'ed up example. :p
And even if guns are legal, it is illigal to use 'm against Humans unless you are threatened IIRC. therefor even in that scenario your whole point is moot.
If a back-seat passenger choose not to wear a seatbelt, he is also endangering the saftey of others in the car, that what you're saying right? But if the other people in the car ackowledge that risk and accept it, what you essentially have is an agreement between grown adults.* And adults don't need to be nannied and supervised, they can handle their own ****.
Back-seat passengers don't have to wear seatbelts here :p hell, seatbelts in the backseats don't even have to be built in :p
And crash-dummy tests have shown that back-seat passengers aren't a threat to others unless you are speeding. And in that case you are already breaking the law and endangering others.
He is waving a loaded gun around, to overstate the danger significantly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the other passengers have agreed to take that risk. Its their choice to make. If they don't agree with him, then he either buckles up or he's walking. Simple as that.
:wtf: You make absolutely NO sense whatsoever in this paragraph.
*obviously if there is a small child present, the situation changes and so does my stance on seatbelts.
So, children are now something else then grown up Human beings? Why protect a baby and not yourself? If you are so adament that babies should be protected, why not a law to protect EVERYONE?
Seriously, you are just being weird.
Freedom of choice only goes so far. If it reaches a point WHERE IT ENDANGERS OTHER, it is no longer 'free' choice. And it DOES endanger others by not wearing them.
-
I find this debate amusing :)
Anyway about that anti seat belt guy. Just reading the article seems to depict him as a bright fellow. I guess it just shows that common sense and intelligence does not necessarily go hand in hand does it, eh?
-
I find the passion amusing.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
As for nuclear weapons, those are specifically designed to inflict harm. They serve no other possible purpose. And given the potential for harm, they can hardly be compared to not wearing a seatbelt. If a nuclear bomb had the potential to kill one person or a few at most, it would be a different matter. But it's not, so there you go.
Fine. Make it a home made nuclear plant. Or an unlicenced distillery.
Originally posted by Rictor
The people in your car are presumably your friends and family.
Unless you're a minicab driver. Shouldn't they have a law to prevent people from endangering them by not wearing a seat belt? Remember that a large percentage of passengers they carry have had a few drinks and probably wouldn't buckle up just cause the driver said so. Threat of a fine is another matter though.
If mini cab drivers shouldn't have a law to protect them where do you draw the line then? Can I open up the cabin door on an areoplane to say hi to the pilot?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Ok, how about another question; in what way is legally requiring people to buckle up a bad thing?
I'd like to know an answer to this, too.
-
How is legally requiring them to go to the gym a bad thing?
-
Gyms cost money. Some people can't go to the gym for medical reasons. People don't have time to go to the gym.
-
I think you missed my point. :p
-
Fine. Make it a home made nuclear plant. Or an unlicenced distillery.
Fine, I will. Just to spite you.
Ok, how about another question; in what way is legally requiring people to buckle up a bad thing?
Becuase people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they are only endangering themselves and those who agree to be endangered. The role of the government is not to provide positive reinforcement (quit smoking, wear your seatbelt, watch your diet), only negative reinforcement (don't murder people, don't set buildings on fire etc). The distinction may be subtle, but the implications are immense. Once your start telling people what they should do, instead of what they shouldn't do, there is almost no end.
So, children are now something else then grown up Human beings? Why protect a baby and not yourself? If you are so adament that babies should be protected, why not a law to protect EVERYONE?
Has it ever occured to you that I may not want to be protected?
I make an exception for small children because you can't expect a 5 year old to consciously know the risks involved, whereas an adult can. Thats the whole problem, treating adults like children. I realize that smoking and alcohol and red meat and not wearing a seat belt are hazardous to my health, I just don't give a ****. And as an adult, no one can tell me otherwise. Life is hazardous to my health, so what.
-------------
as for the threat to others, outside the car (since those inside the car have, by their very presence, consented to the situation), well until someone shows me otherwise I am inclined to believe that the threat is no greater than any number of everyday occurences, and not great enough to warrant legislation. You have to draw the line somewhere, thats agreed, but where we disagree is as to where.
If 1 person per year dies of poodle attacks, that is not enough to warrant outlawing poodles. But if 500,000 a year die from poodle attacks, thats a different story.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Gyms cost money. Some people can't go to the gym for medical reasons. People don't have time to go to the gym.
Well, theres a very simple solution. Structure everyone's days so that they have time enough to go to the gym, and give them enough money to pay for it. And make sure that they each have a personal fitness coach to monitor their progress. Better yet, a two-way screen in their living rooms would enable them to do excercise right from their lown home, with their coach watching them from the other end.
You're missing the point entirely.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unless you're a minicab driver. Shouldn't they have a law to prevent people from endangering them by not wearing a seat belt? Remember that a large percentage of passengers they carry have had a few drinks and probably wouldn't buckle up just cause the driver said so. Threat of a fine is another matter though.
If mini cab drivers shouldn't have a law to protect them where do you draw the line then? Can I open up the cabin door on an areoplane to say hi to the pilot?
In my experience Cab drivers care less than anyone. Hell, you only have to watch how the f****sdrive:
"3 point turn in the middle of a busy main road ? Yeah! F**k it!"
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, theres a very simple solution. Structure everyone's days so that they have time enough to go to the gym, and give them enough money to pay for it. And make sure that they each have a personal fitness coach to monitor their progress. Better yet, a two-way screen in their living rooms would enable them to do excercise right from their lown home, with their coach watching them from the other end.
You're missing the point entirely.
If you can tell me a way of making people compulsarily excercise that doesn;t require them reallocating their time to do so, then I'd be much surprised.
It's a very simple cost-benefit analysis. Cost of national excercise program is high (public funded gyms, cost of time which is allocated to do said excercise, cost of said fitness coach is high) for a probably high benefit to public health and safety.
Cost of seatbelt law is negligable to none (less than 5 secs to buckle up, only required when already travelling, can be handled by the same officers as patrol for speeders, dangerous drivers, etc), with a singnificant benefit to public helath and safety (namely saving lives).
I would think that was a very simple point.
Explain to me again; how does having a seatbelt law hurt people or society?
-
You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? How can you so completely and utterly miss the point? Its not about cost-benefit, its about choice.
If it was possible to implement a compulsory national fitness program without re-shuffling anyone's schedule and without cutting funding to any other social program, would you be in favour? Really, would you?
There is only one drawback to legislating seat-belt usage, and that is choice! You know, the freedom to do what you want, go where you want, and generally mind your own business. Choice is a good and worthy thing in and of itself, that chould be defended. I don't want to do whats best for me. I don't want to do what everyone else is doing. I don't want to do what the government tells me I should. I want to do what I want to do.
By the same merit, you would presumably have no objection to putting security cameras on every street, in every alley and building, because what are the drawbacks? None, except privacy. And the obvious benefit is that things such as crime, child and spousal abuse ann generaly anti-social behaviour could be reduced. What sane person would oppose such a measure?
-
You can exhange any principle to a level which is destructive, be it choice or imposition. What you're doing, is advocating based on the most extreme position you can imagine, without any degree of consideration for the single specific situation which we are discussing. By your extent, all laws can be considered an imposition on our choice.
Freedom of speech is a key part of free society. Freedom of the press is.
The right to chuck yourself out of the window into a passer by when you crash, isn't.
-
"By your extent, all laws can be considered an imposition on our choice. "
Bingo!
However, certain laws are required if society is to be kept from tearing itsefl apart. Laws are merits, and faults (one of which is the simple fact that they exist). So what is needed is to determine whether the benefits are worth the cost in freedom.
In this specific case, I think they are not. How many people die every year as a result of people not wearing seatblets, excluding the people in the car? Not too many I would imagine.
The thing is, people's lives are a tangible thing, and so the case for them is quite easy to make. No one likes to see people die, so you instantly have something to appeal to. But freedom is an abstraction, and so you can not easily communicate its true worth, especially when it is supressed in such small doses. Thats the reason, I think, why alot of people are on the side of the debate that they are.
-
The difference is defining 'want' and 'need' in situations such as this. Who is going to be the first group pointed at when something disastrous happens involving someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
We laugh because it is law, and this person wasn't obeying it out of choice, and because of that, he died.
What would our reaction have been had there been no such law? If we knew that seatbelts saved but didn't make them compulsory to wear?
I can imagine we would be saying that it's stupid not to have a law against it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
"By your extent, all laws can be considered an imposition on our choice. "
Bingo!
However, certain laws are required if society is to be kept from tearing itsefl apart. Laws are merits, and faults (one of which is the simple fact that they exist). So what is needed is to determine whether the benefits are worth the cost in freedom.
In this specific case, I think they are not. How many people die every year as a result of people not wearing seatblets, excluding the people in the car? Not too many I would imagine.
Gee...you'd almost think that was because there was a law against not wearing seatbelts, wouldn't you?
Originally posted by Rictor
[BThe thing is, people's lives are a tangible thing, and so the case for them is quite easy to make. No one likes to see people die, so you instantly have something to appeal to. But freedom is an abstraction, and so you can not easily communicate its true worth, especially when it is supressed in such small doses. Thats the reason, I think, why alot of people are on the side of the debate that they are. [/B]
and how much does the right to not wear a seatbelt count in defining our personal freedoms and humanity? And what is the cost? 3 seconds at the start and end of a journey?
It doesn't affect our right to travel, where we can travel to, what reasons we can travel for. In fact, the only effect it does have, is maybe a slight chafing. In exchange, we run the increased risk of not dying in an accident.
Is that really losing us our freedom?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Has it ever occured to you that I may not want to be protected?
Whoop-dee-f*cking-doo!
If you don't want to be protected go hang yourself or something since you obviously have a deathwish.
I don't care if you don't WANT to wear a seatbelt. IT IS NOT[/u] ABOUT YOU! It is about all those other people that you endanger by not wearing your seatbelt.
:rolleyes:
-
Gee...you'd almost think that was because there was a law against not wearing seatbelts, wouldn't you?
If it ceased to be illegal not to do so, would you still wear your seatbelt? What do you think about society (or your society) at large? If the benefits are as obvious as you claim, why would reject them?
Is that really losing us our freedom?
We are losing some freedom, whether or not it is too much is a subjective matter.
My problem is not with this or that issue specifically. My problem is with the process, and it is a steady process, of giving up individual freedoms in order to "benefit society".
What I see is an unmistakable trend of people people handing over their rights, mostly for minor things such as this (or the smoking bans), which on the surface benefit everyone. However, I am not naive enough to believe that this will stop anytime soon.
Imagine that you asked someone like Kazan (or to a lesser degree you and kara) to write down EVERY societal change that they would like to implement (all for the good, of course). Now, imagine that you magically implemented EVERY single thing on that list.
How long do you think it would be before they found a new cause to fight, for people's own benefit of course? Now long before they found some other thing which should be adjusted, some new law that should be made, to make society a better, happier place? Alright, so they make a new list, and you implement EVERY desired change. Now long before they make a new list?
When right are taken away in a matter of days or weeks, it called dictatorship. When they are taken away in a matter of decades or centuries, its called living in a modern Western democracy. Its is a sure and one-way process, which is why I am loathe to give even an inch.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Whoop-dee-f*cking-doo!
If you don't want to be protected go hang yourself or something since you obviously have a deathwish.
I don't care if you don't WANT to wear a seatbelt. IT IS NOT[/u] ABOUT YOU! It is about all those other people that you endanger by not wearing your seatbelt.
:rolleyes:
find me as statistic that says that the number of deaths per year due to non-seatbelt wearing exceeds the "oh look, two whole people died, aint that a damn shame" level?
-
The problem is that Rictor lives in a black and white world where any percieved infringement on liberty no matter how important or worthwhile is the thin edge of the wedge which will result in a totalitarian thread.
What can you say to someone who hears the sounds of nazi jackboots in an attempt to prevent the spread of child pornography?
I only argue with him now to watch him defend more and more ridiculous viewpoints cause after the child porn thread it was fairly obvious that this was a pretty deep well :)
Originally posted by Rictor
When right are taken away in a matter of days or weeks, it called dictatorship. When they are taken away in a matter of decades or centuries, its called living in a modern Western democracy. Its is a sure and one-way process, which is why I am loathe to give even an inch.
Really? Wanna explain why the facist dictatorships in Europe both before and after WWII all fell if it's a one way process?
-
Laws such as this aren't there to protect intelligent people though Rictor. Come to think of it, if you approached it from the 'Darwinism' point of view, I'd be semi-inclined to agree, however, even two lives lost because of one person taking a chosen risk, is one too many.
-
I'm glad I can provide some amusement kara, I would hate to think that I contribute nothing at all to enriching your day.
-
Oh you do. I always find it amusing to watch someone trying to defend a ludicrous position :)
-
Better to hear the sound of jackboots at every turn than not to hear them at all.
And before you say that I live in a black and white world, you have to be biased to one side, thats implicit in any linear system such as that of Societal or State rights vs Individual rights. You are simply biased to the opposite side, which makes you no better.
(this in itself is subjective, since who is to determine where the centre is?)
-
I think the thing is, you need to bring education into the system first. Humans have a wonderful habit of ignoring what they don't want to believe, I do it, you do, everyone here does to a certain extent, it's human nature.
How can we tell whether someone truly understands the threat that not wearing a seatbelt can cause. How old are you before you become aware that cessation of (earthly - to avoid conflict) life is going to happen to you too, no matter how much you pretend otherwise?
When I was 17, it was 'cool' not to wear a seatbelt, and it was not law to do so. I myself was not immune to the angst-flooded teenage disease ;) I lost 3 friends who were 'cool', because of one stupid person. Now, nothing can change that, you could call it Darwinism in a way, and yet, did they really understand the cost of not looking like a geek? I don't know for certain.
It's that age group I worry about to be honest. When you're 17, death is something that happens to other people.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If it ceased to be illegal not to do so, would you still wear your seatbelt? What do you think about society (or your society) at large? If the benefits are as obvious as you claim, why would reject them?
I don't know. If I had not been brought up in a country where the law existed, possibly not.
But it's very obvious why those benefits would be/are rejected; seatbelts are uncomfortable and you're not guaranteed to have a crash. some people don't think agead.
Originally posted by Rictor
We are losing some freedom, whether or not it is too much is a subjective matter.
My problem is not with this or that issue specifically. My problem is with the process, and it is a steady process, of giving up individual freedoms in order to "benefit society".
What I see is an unmistakable trend of people people handing over their rights, mostly for minor things such as this (or the smoking bans), which on the surface benefit everyone. However, I am not naive enough to believe that this will stop anytime soon.
Imagine that you asked someone like Kazan (or to a lesser degree you and kara) to write down EVERY societal change that they would like to implement (all for the good, of course). Now, imagine that you magically implemented EVERY single thing on that list.
How long do you think it would be before they found a new cause to fight, for people's own benefit of course? Now long before they found some other thing which should be adjusted, some new law that should be made, to make society a better, happier place? Alright, so they make a new list, and you implement EVERY desired change. Now long before they make a new list?
When right are taken away in a matter of days or weeks, it called dictatorship. When they are taken away in a matter of decades or centuries, its called living in a modern Western democracy. Its is a sure and one-way process, which is why I am loathe to give even an inch.
Regardless of the cost in human life?
Equating not being able to smoke in public, or having to buckle up, as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, or Facist Italy, or Stalins Russia, etc, is sheer insanity. What do you want? Do you want complete freedom - so we can rape, murder, etc? Or none?
Or do you want something outside the black an white view where some laws can be instigated for the common good of society? To protect people, perhaps? Maybe where, I dunno, we actually consider the issue as it stands on its own merits rather than some surrealist nightmare/wonderland decades or centuries down the road, populated by the allegories that suit our opinion of an unrelated issue?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Better to hear the sound of jackboots at every turn than not to hear them at all.
Again more black and white thinking. It is not better to hear the sound if it's all in your head. What you need to do is hear the sound only when real jackboots are making it. You don't you hear them all the time.
Originally posted by Rictor
And before you say that I live in a black and white world, you have to be biased to one side, thats implicit in any linear system such as that of Societal or State rights vs Individual rights. You are simply biased to the opposite side, which makes you no better.
(this in itself is subjective, since who is to determine where the centre is?)
Not true. I keep mentioning the Child Porn thread cause it really shows how black and white your thinking actually is. In that thread you had two sets of individual rights.
The right of an individual to own child porn against the right of an individual to know child porn involving themselves isn't being distributed. In all moral and legal terms the second one is the greater right. Yet you came down on the side of the paedophiles on the grounds of their individual rights. You completely ignored the victims individual rights.
There are plenty of times I've supported the right of an individual over that of society too. You don't, ever. That's why I call your thinking black and white.
-
:nervous:
I feel like I'm posting in a different dimension...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
:nervous:
I feel like I'm posting in a different dimension...
Me too. Rictor has about enough passion as that anti-seat belt fellow. You got to admire that though...
-
If you take the position that a driver alone in a car, wearing no seat belt, poses only a danger to himself as a result, we can make this comparison:
To protect my freedom I am willing to risk major terrorist attacks on my country - I don't want "protected" by people like Tony Blair or his former home secratery David Blunkett. I want my freedom first and my security second. The same principle applied to wearing a seatbelt can surely be no different?
-
It makes sense.
And sometimes the law has to be there to force people along the path of common sense...
Same with crash helmets on motorcycles - a lot of people moaned about it, but it has saved lives...
-
Originally posted by Clave
It makes sense.
And sometimes the law has to be there to force people along the path of common sense...
Same with crash helmets on motorcycles - a lot of people moaned about it, but it has saved lives...
:):yes:
-
Originally posted by Clave
It makes sense.
And sometimes the law has to be there to force people along the path of common sense...
Same with crash helmets on motorcycles - a lot of people moaned about it, but it has saved lives...
Exactly. If we go by Rictor's logic, we shouldn't have speed limits at all. Hell, why should we even pay taxes? After all, it all goes to our gestapo of a government to pay for the future oppression of the world. :rolleyes: There comes a time when you have to keep people from making stupid mistakes. Laws like this are a prime example. Your right to do whatever you want stops when it affects others around you.
You don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine, just don't come crying to me when you end up like a certain deer in a series of pictures thats been floating around the internet lately. (I don't link to them on here, but they're not hard to find via google.) Just remember, when you nail someone, your body has a damn good chance of becoming a living missile that could easily fataly injure someone in another vehicle.